End of the Line for the Dugong

[Half Baked]

Word on the street that it!s official, Airbus to cease production of the 380!!!!!!!

[Capt Fathom]

All the fault of Qantas! Cancelling those last 8 orders has tipped Airbus over the edge!

[tail wheel]

Helps if a bit more information is provided! https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504

[The Bullwinkle]

End of the Line for the Dugong

Also known as the Sarah Jessica Parker because it’s ugly and high maintenance!

[megan]

Also known as the Sarah Jessica Parker because it’s ugly and high maintenance

Maybe, but what a ride she gives. The best of any travel experience to be had to date, unless it's a big piston aka Connie, DC-6, 7.

[machtuk]

It's a shame the big bus is coming to an end, it's just the sign of the times. The world economy is fragile & the aviation sector is at the mercy of that fragile economy. Having flown many Hrs on both types (conventional column & side stick there really is no comparison...…….......civilized pilots eat from a table :-):-)

[The Bullwinkle]

civilized pilots

There’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one! ​​​​​​​

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

civilized pilots …..

You know, the ones with the biggest watches.....??

Cheers

[Pinky the pilot]

civilized pilots There’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one! ​​​​​​

I will assume that the above was a tongue-in-cheek throwaway line.

In my time in and around the Industry I have known quite a few Pilots whom I would have described as 'civilised.'

For me, that term means an "Educated Gentleman" or, an "Educated Lady."

If some would criticise the above as being 'elitist' or whatever, I care not.

And Griffo, I'm sure that you know just where I place you!

[The Bullwinkle]

I will assume that the above was a tongue-in-cheek throwaway line.

Yes, it was meant to be funny!

[tail wheel]

The world economy is fragile & the aviation sector is at the mercy of that fragile economy.

More importantly, perhaps Airbus should have been watching Boeing research into the market for larger capacity, longer range aircraft?

Boeing had considered larger-capacity versions of the 747 several times during the 1990s and 2000s (Boeing New Large Airplane). The 747-500X and -600X, proposed at the 1996 Farnborough Airshow, would have stretched the 747 and used a 777-derived wing, but it did not attract enough interest to enter development. In 2000, Boeing offered the 747X and 747X Stretch derivatives as alternatives to the Airbus A3XX. This was a more modest proposal than the previous −500X and −600X. The 747X would increase the 747's wingspan to 229 ft (69.8 m) by adding a segment at the root. The 747X was to carry 430 passengers up to 8,700 nmi (16,100 km). The 747X Stretch would be extended to 263 ft (80.2 m) long, allowing it to carry 500 passengers up to 7,800 nmi (14,400 km). However, the 747X family was unable to attract enough interest to enter production. Some of the ideas developed for the 747X were used on the 747-400ER.

Finally Boeing built the 747-8 largely from the 747-400 base plus existing Boeing technology and has sold 130 at December 2018, whilst the Airbus A380 was a €25 billion new technology project, 234 currently sold and in service and it appears production will cease in the very near future.

Interestingly of the 130 B747-8 delivered so far, 84 (64.6%) were 747-8F freighters. Boeing 747-8 base price $403.6M for 410 pax, three class seating, versus US$445.6M for the A380, typically 555 pax, three class seating.

I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.

The A380 is a great aircraft, hope they survive into the future.

[parabellum]

I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.

The B747 was originally built as a freighter for USAF but lost the competition to the C5A Galaxy. The B747 went on to be a successful pax aircraft and didn't need any where as much re-engineering to convert to a freighter as I believe the A380 would require. Have heard it said a few times by people within the industry who one would expect to know that an A380 freighter is highly unlikely, largely due to conversion cost.

[machtuk]

Originally Posted by tail wheel

More importantly, perhaps Airbus should have been watching Boeing research into the market for larger capacity, longer range aircraft?Finally Boeing built the 747-8 largely from the 747-400 base plus existing Boeing technology and has sold 130 at December 2018, whilst the Airbus A380 was a €25 billion new technology project, 234 currently sold and in service and it appears production will cease in the very near future.

Interestingly of the 130 B747-8 delivered so far, 84 (64.6%) were 747-8F freighters. Boeing 747-8 base price $403.6M for 410 pax, three class seating, versus US$445.6M for the A380, typically 555 pax, three class seating.

I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.

The A380 is a great aircraft, hope they survive into the future.

Like ALL A/C manufacturers they do their research first. Gotta remember that Airbus didn't just dream up this concept on their own & build it 'hoping' Airlines would come buy it, they would have gotten expressions of interest from the big players first, then took the plunge. (Remember Boeing put it all on the line when the B747 was designed/built & it payed off, luckily cause it was a very diff era way back then!) That coupled with the long lead in time it takes from a clean sheet design to in service means the worlds economy (Mainly OIL prices) can change & it has/did, hence we have today a great design that no longer 'fit's the thinking of many years ago! Boeing even know this these days.
The smaller Buses will live on, the 380 is just one design that will still feature in aviation for many years to come as the World turns in what seems like ever increasing smaller circles.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by parabellum

The B747 was originally built as a freighter for USAF but lost the competition to the C5A Galaxy. The B747 went on to be a successful pax aircraft and didn't need any where as much re-engineering to convert to a freighter as I believe the A380 would require. Have heard it said a few times by people within the industry who one would expect to know that an A380 freighter is highly unlikely, largely due to conversion cost.

Actually that's a myth - there was minimal commonality between the 747 and the Boeing USAF large freighter (e.g. C5) proposal. Rather, the 747 was largely the result of a request by Pan Am's Juan Trippe for a very large passenger aircraft (originally envisioned as a double deck 'narrow body' before Joe Sutter convinced Trippe that a single deck wide body made more sense). However at the same time the 747 was being developed, SSTs were also being developed by the US, Europe, and the Soviet Union. The belief was that the SSTs would eventually make the 747 obsolete as a passenger aircraft, so the design was provisioned to be readily converted to a freighter. Of course the whole supersonic passenger jet thing fell apart (aside from a handful of Concordes) and the 747 went on to become very successful as both a passenger and freighter aircraft.

You are correct that the A380 doesn't pencil out as a good freighter - the upper deck would need massive strengthening to take cargo (plus new infrastructure to load other than SLF to the upper deck), and it's MZFW is too low to carry a lot of freight. The only way it might work would be as a combi - with freight on the main deck and passengers on the upper deck - but after the 747 combi Helderberg crash, the new regulations have made it very, very difficult to certify a new combi aircraft.

[Going Boeing]

Originally Posted by tail wheel

I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.

I believe the main problem for the A380 freighter is that the three decks don’t have enough ceiling height to permit carriage of the taller pallets commonly used in the air freight business. The B747-8F has a higher ceiling under the upper deck & is thus not limited.

[tail wheel]

Rather, the 747 was largely the result of a request by Pan Am's Juan Trippe for a very large passenger aircraft....

That is what I recall. At the time Pan-Am was the largest airline in the free world and their order alone would have justified production of the 747.

There was another factor also that greatly benefited the 747, that of range. Pan Am had a number of very long air routes - US into South America and Europe, trans Pacific etc - and was looking for greater payload range, compared to the B707 (-320 3,700 miles). The 747-100 had a range of 4,600 miles, 747SP 5,800 miles and 747-200 6,500 miles.

Whilst the A380's 8,000 mile range offered a great improvement during development, unlike the 747 that for many years reigned supreme in long haul range, the A380 range was rapidly matched by smaller, more flexible and economical twins such as the Boeing 787 (7,400 miles) and now the A350 (8,400 miles).

I suspect a viable limit of commercial passenger aircraft range has now been reached, at 8,000 miles/17 flight hours/one third Earth circumference. Any increase in aircraft range without being matched by a comparable increase in aircraft speed, could prove very unpopular with long haul passengers.

But who knows? The concept of todays air travel and aircraft capability could not even be imagined when my father was born only 6 years after Richard Pearce and the Wright Brothers first flew!

[Chocks Away]

Yes, the "super-guppy's days are numbered for sure now.
Lovely to fly on as passenger, with great service options especially on longer flights.

[parabellum]

Thanks tdracer, I have happily followed the crowd for years, without checking, and thought the story about the C5A v. B747 was true!

Was the 747 ever offered up as an alternative to the C5A or is it pure mythology from start to finish?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by parabellum

Thanks tdracer, I have happily followed the crowd for years, without checking, and thought the story about the C5A v. B747 was true!

Was the 747 ever offered up as an alternative to the C5A or is it pure mythology from start to finish?

Boeing made a serious proposal for what became the C5A, but it lost out to the Lockheed proposal. I don't know specifics (this was all before my time, although I knew many people who were involved), but the 747 development was more or less independent of the C5. Granted, many of the engineers involved in the 747 development worked the C5 proposal so there was certainly some common thinking - for example the idea of the raised cockpit to allow a nose cargo door freighter was very likely a carry over. But the part about Boeing building the 747 from their losing C5 proposal was a complete myth. In fact, I never hear much complaining that the USAF had picked the wrong proposal for the C5 - but lots of bitching that Boeing's proposal for the B1 was hugely better than Rockwell's - to the point that they alleged that the USAF basically gave Rockwell the Boeing proposal for the B1 and said 'build this'...
That sort of cross pollination between development programs is common - much of the groundwork for what became the 777 started out with the 7J7 ( rear engine unducted fan - never got past the concept stage). Similarly much of the never launched 'Sonic Cruiser' work ended up being incorporated into the 787.

When the USAF was preparing to buy the second batch of C5 aircraft in the early 1980s - Boeing made a serious bid for the 747 Freighter instead - but it never got very far because the 747 doesn't have the outsized cargo capability of the C5, nor the unimproved field capabilities.

[parabellum]

Thanks tdracer, very interesting., appreciated.